United States v. Rodriguez-Castro
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11057
9th Cir.2011Background
- Rodriguez pled guilty to importing 33.46 kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 and was sentenced to 57 months.
- Rodriguez challenged the district court’s denial of a minor-role reduction that the government had recommended in the plea agreement.
- The plea agreement provided a two-level downward adjustment under § 3B1.2(b) for a minor role and, if granted, a three-level decrease under § 2D1.1(a)(5)(ii), yielding a 41–51 month range.
- Rodriguez assisted in the offense by accepting a vehicle, registering it in his name, and making multiple border crossings; 33.46 kg of cocaine was placed in the gas tank.
- The Presentence Report recommended no minor-role adjustment; the district court declined to award it, citing Rodriguez’s preparatory role and the large quantity of drugs.
- The district court calculated an adjusted offense level of 27, then varied downward by two levels under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to avoid disparities, resulting in a 57–71 month Guidelines range and a 57-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial estoppel and plea agreement effect | Gov’t estopped; plea agreement binds appeal. | Rodriguez argues government cannot support the sentence on appeal due to the agreement. | Not estopped; the government may support the sentence actually imposed. |
| entitlement to minor-role adjustment | Rodriguez played a minor role; adjustment warranted. | District court erred in denying minor-role reduction based on policy disagreement. | District court did not clearly err; no abuse of discretion in denying the minor-role adjustment. |
| Substantive reasonableness of the sentence | Sentence is substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a). | Court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors and did not misapply standards. | Sentence is substantively reasonable; not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Schuman, 127 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1997) (government may support on appeal the sentence imposed)
- United States v. Russell, 893 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1990) (estoppel requires contradiction with prior assertion)
- United States v. Lui, 941 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1991) (courier may be non-minor/non-minor in presence of other factors)
- United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269 (9th Cir. 2006) (burden on defendant to prove entitlement to downward adjustment)
- United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424 (9th Cir. 1994) (consideration of role in drug quantity context)
- United States v. Hursh, 217 F.3d 761 (9th Cir. 2000) (minor participant standard in Ninth Circuit)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc; appropriate standard for 3553(a) review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonable-ness review under Gall)
- Diaz-Argueta, 564 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (requirement of articulating § 3553 factors)